BOARD DATE:	  3 November 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090007170 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests the following awards be added to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge): the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star Medal in lieu of the Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He also requests that his military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B2O on his DD Form 214 be changed to MOS 11B4O.  

2.  The applicant states that all of his awards were not included on his DD Form 214.  He states that he was serving in the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5 and his MOS should reflect that he was serving in MOS 11B4O.  He states his unit awarded the Bronze Star Medal to sergeants/E-5 and above in March 1969, but he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal because he was erroneously listed as serving in the rank of specialist four/pay grade E-4.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214; his orders for the awards of the Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster; and orders promoting him to sergeant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military personnel records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 17 August 1967.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 11B (Infantryman).

3.  On 13 January 1968, the applicant was assigned to Company B, 
6th Battalion, 31st Infantry at Fort Lewis, WA.

4.  Headquarters, 6th Battalion, 31st Infantry Special Orders Number 17, dated 28 January 1968, awarded the applicant the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

5.  On 6 April 1968, the applicant's unit deployed to the Republic of Vietnam.

6.  Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division General Orders Number 1182, dated 
2 February 1969, awarded the applicant the Purple Heart for wounds received in connection with military operations against a hostile force on 18 January 1969.

7.  Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division General Orders Number 2450, dated
3 March 1969, awarded the applicant the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster for meritorious achievement while participating in sustained aerial flight during the period from 25 July 1968 to 18 December 1968.

8.  Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division General Orders Number 2867, dated 
10 March 1969, lists 13 members of the applicant's unit for the award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 1968 to March 1969.  The applicant's name is among the 
13 members listed and his rank is shown as specialist four/E-4.  The list shows that two sergeants/E-5 were awarded the Army Commendation Medal (one with First Oak Leaf Cluster).  The remaining 11 named members, including the applicant, were serving in the rank of specialist four/E-4.

9.  Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division Special Orders Number 114, dated 
24 April 1969, promoted the applicant to the rank of sergeant with an effective date of 1 February 1969 and shows his MOS as 11B4O.
10.  The applicant was released from active duty on 8 July 1969.  He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 22 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.  Item 23a (Specialty Number & Title) contains the entry "11B2O INF" (infantry).  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not include the awards being requested by the applicant.  Item 24 does show the applicant is authorized the Vietnam Service Medal.

11.  There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Records do not show indiscipline or lost time.  His records do not contain any adverse information and he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” throughout his service.

12.  Based on the applicant's dates of service in Vietnam, Table B-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) shows he served in the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV Campaign (2 April 1968 - 30 June 1968); the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V Campaign (1 July 1968 - 1 November 1968); and the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VI Campaign (2 November 1968 - 
22 February 1969).

13.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, unit citation emblems awarded during the Vietnam Conflict, the Grenada Operation, and the period of service subsequent to the Vietnam Conflict up to September 1987.  This document shows that during the time of the applicant’s assignment to the 6th Battalion, 31st Infantry the unit received the following unit awards:

	a.  the Valorous Unit Award for the period 6 - 12 May 1968, based on Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) Number 43, dated 1970;

	b.  three awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the periods:  from 1 December 1966 - 30 June 1968, based on DAGO 31, dated 1969; from 1 July - 13 November 1968, based on DAGO 31, dated 1969; and from January - June 1969 based on DAGO 59, dated 1969; and

	c.  the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for the period from 19 December 1966 to 28 June 1969, based on DAGO 59, dated 1969.


14.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 states, in pertinent part, that not more than one Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation will be worn by any individual.  However, although wear of multiple awards of this unit citation is not authorized, official military personnel and historical records will indicate all awards received.

15.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who had completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period was each 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ended with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, provides that bronze service stars are worn on campaign and service medals to denote participation in a named campaign and on the service ribbons to denote an additional award.  Named campaigns are listed in Appendix B of this regulation.  Authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal, which in this case is the Vietnam Service Medal.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his unit awarded a Bronze Star Medal to Soldiers serving in the rank of sergeant/E-5 and above in March 1969 and that he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal instead of the Bronze Star Medal because he was erroneously identified as a specialist/E-4 on the orders awarding him the Army Commendation Medal.

2.  The applicant's orders promoting him to the rank of sergeant/E-5 were issued over a month after his award of the Army Commendation Medal and the effective date of his promotion was over a month before this award.  There is no evidence indicating the reason for the delay in issuing the orders.  The applicant contends if he had correctly been identified as a sergeant he would have received a Bronze Star Medal.

3.  However, the orders awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal include two sergeants, one with First Oak Leaf Cluster, being awarded the Army Commendation Medal.  Therefore, the evidence does not support the applicant's contention that all Soldiers serving in the rank of sergeant/E-5 and above received the Bronze Star Medal.  The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  There is no evidence the applicant would have received a Bronze Star Medal if his promotion orders had been issued earlier.

4.  The applicant's promotion orders show his MOS as 11B4O.  Therefore, it is appropriate to correct item 23a of his DD Form 214 show "11B4O INF."

5.  The applicant's records do not show indiscipline or lost time, he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "excellent" throughout his military service, and he was promoted to sergeant in less than 2 years.  Therefore, the preponderance of evidence shows the applicant is entitled to the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal based on completion of qualifying service from 17 August 1967 to 8 July 1969 ending with termination of a period of Federal military service and to have it included in item 24 of his DD Form 214.

6.  The available orders show the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to include these awards in item 24 of his DD Form 214.

7.  Based on the applicant’s service with the 6th Battalion, 31st Infantry he is authorized the Valorous Unit Award, three awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to include these awards in item 24 of his DD Form 214.

8.  The applicant's military personnel records show he participated in three campaigns during his service in Vietnam.  Therefore, he is entitled to three bronze service stars to be worn on his Vietnam Service Medal.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ____x___  ___x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  deleting the entry in item 23a of his DD Form 214 and adding "11B4O INF";

	b.  awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 
17 August 1967 to 8 July 1969; and

	c.  amending item 24 of his DD Form 214 by adding the following awards to the list of authorized awards:  the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, three bronze service stars to be worn on the already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal, the Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (three awards), the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the Bronze Star Medal.  




      _______ _   _x______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007170



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007170



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1